Ricketts against Bodenham and Others
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 01 January 1836 |
| Date | 01 January 1836 |
| Court | Court of the King's Bench |
English Reports Citation: 111 E.R. 850
IN THE COURT OF KING'S BENCH.
S. C. 6 N. & M. 170; 1 H. & W. 753; 5 D. P. C. 120; 5 L. J. K. B. 102. Referred to, Farquharson v. Morgan, [1894] 1 Q. B. 558.
[433] ricketts against boijenham and others. same against same. same }i MJ&inst same. 1836. Stat. 53 G. 3, c. 127, s. 7, which gives power to a justice co enforce the payment of a sum under 101. due upon a church-rate, where the validity of the rate has not been questioned, nor the liability of the party, takes away the jurisdiction of the Ecclesiastical Court in such cases. But, if the validity or liability be in question, the Ecclesiastical Courts have jurisdiction, though the party has not been summoned before a justice. Therefore, where a party, not having been summoned before a justice, was libelled in the Consistory Court for a sum which, on the face of the proceedings, was less than 101., due upon a church-rate, and sentence was given against him, this Court refused to grant a prohibition, upon the ground that the validity of the rate was questioned in the proceedings in the Ecclesiastical Courts. And afterwards, it appearing, by more particular reference to the pleadings themselves, that they did not disclose whether or not the validity was questioned, this Court held that that circumstance alone did not authorise it to issue a prohibition. Semble, that the Consistory Court of the Bishop, the Court of Arches, and the Court of Delegates, are Superior Courts; and that after sentence, unless defect of jurisdiction be apparent on the proceedings therein, it will not be intended. Semble, that, on a motion for prohibition as above, this Court will look only to the proceedings in the Ecclesiastical Court, and not to affidavits, for the purpose of ascertaining whether the validity of the rate was there questioned. [S. C. 6 N. & M. 170; 1 H. & W. 753; 5 D. P. C. 120; 5 L. J. K. B. 102. Referred to, Farquharson v. Morgan, [1894] 1 Q. B. 558.] The defendants, being the churchwardens of the parish of Presteign, in the diocese of Hereford, for the year commencing at Easter 1830, instituted a suit on the 8th of July 1830, against the plaintiff, in the Consistory Court of Hereford, for three church rates, amounting severally to 51., 15s., 41. 6s. 3d., and 41. 6s. 3d., assessed by the churchwardens for the years 1827, 1828, and 1829 respectively. Before they had proceeded beyond the libel, they amended the libel, by abandoning their claim for all but the rate of 41. 6s. 3d. made by the churchwardens for 1829. A decree was pronounced against the plaintiff, with costs. He then appealed to the Court of Arches, which affirmed the decree, with costs. He then appealed again to the Court of Delegates, which also affirmed the decree, with costs. Three significavits were issued from the several Courts, for the sum of 41. 6s. 3d. and costs, and three several writs de con-tumace capiendo. In Trinity term last Sir F. Pollock obtained three [434] rules to shew cause why writs of prohibition should not issue to the three Ecclesiastical Courts respectively, on the ground that stat. 53 G. 3, c. 127, s. 7 (a) took away the jurisdiction of the Spiritual Courts in cases where the claim made is for a church rate under 101. The (a) See the clause set out, ante, p. 356, note (a). 4 AD. &E. 436. RICKETTS V. BODENHAM 851 affidavit in support of the rule stated the above facts, and that questions respecting the validity of the writs and significavits were pending before this Court and the Court of Chancery ; and that the plaintiff believed the whole of the writs and significavits to be irregular, invalid, and illegal; that previously to the commencement of the suit he had not been summoned, nor, to his knowledge atid belief, had any proceedings been taken against him, before any justice of the peace; and that previously to such commencement the validity of the rates had not, to his knowledge, been questioned in any Ecclesiastical Court. There were also statements for the purpose of shewing that the sentence of the Consistory Court was wrong on a point of practice. By the affidavits in answer, it appeared that Mr. Ricketts, after the affirmation of the sentence by the Court of Delegates, presented a petition, and also a supplemental petition, to the King in Council, for a commission of review, which petitions were referred to the Lord Chancellor, and rejected; that, before the significavit from the Consistory Court of Hereford issued, as mentioned in the affidavit in support of the rule, a significavit had issued from the same Court, which had been quashed for irregularity on motion before the Lord Chancellor, and that no writ de contumace capiendo had issued thereon ; that motions were afcer-[435]-wards made in Chancery to quash the three aignificavits mentioned in the affidavit in support of the rule; that the Court of Chancery had then quashed the significavit from the Consistory Court which had issued after the quashing of the previous one, but had sustained those from the other two; that, in the proceedings, Mr. Ricketts had questioned the validity of the rate; that, in the proceedings before the Court of Delegates, he had printed the whole of the rates of 1830 and 1832; and that, in his petition for the commission of review, he had insisted on the invalidity of the rate, on the following grounds, viz. that it contained on the face of it an unequal and fraudulent assessment, that it was made...
To continue reading
Request your trial
- R v Hibble; ex parte Broken Hill Pty Company Ltd
-
Pease and Others against Henry Chaytor, Esquire, and Another
...of such rate, or the liability of the person from whom it is demanded to pay the same, be disputed." [They cited Eicketts v. Kodenham (4 A. & E. 433, 444), per Lord Denman.] In stat. 5 & 6 W. 4, c. 74, for the more easy recovery of tithe*, which is a statute in pari raateria with the former......
-
Griffin against Ellis and Gough
...S. C., at a later stage, 2 Curt. Eccl. Rep. 77. (a)2 See Gare v. Gapper, 3 East, 472; Gould v. Gapper, 5 East, 345; Ricketis v. Bodenham, 4 A. & E. 433. (a)3 It has not been thought necessary to report minutely the arguments upon the points which the Court did not decide. 602 ALLAN V. QOMME......
-
The Queen against Thorogood
...as to the validity of the rate or liability [188] of the party. The doubt which has arisen on this point (as in Ricketts v. Bodenham (4 A. & E. 433)), appears to have been raited by the limited language of the saving proviso in sect. 7 : and it must be admitted that this proviso, which seem......